SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
135-year-long streak is over: US renewable sources topped coal in 2019
Two weeks ago, we covered a US Energy Information Administration (EIA) projection that renewable wind, solar, and hydroelectric power would top coal for total electricity generation in 2020. That was particularly believable given that renewables had beat coal in daily generation every day going back to March 24. As it happens, that daily streak finally came to an end this week, as coal picked up amid rising demand and a couple low days for wind. Coal likely topped renewables on Tuesday, although it's possible that rooftop solar generation (not included in EIA's daily data) extended the run until Wednesday.
But the EIA also released some numbers Thursday that highlight a related and interesting piece of trivia: if you include energy use beyond the electric sector and all types of renewable energy, renewables actually beat out coal last year. And to find the last time that was true, you have to go all the way back to the 1880s.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31 2020, @06:07PM (14 children)
Ah yes, the old "oil subsidies." Things like not paying imaginary taxes that liberals say they should pay, depreciation on capital like any other business, and my favorite, money spent by regulatory agencies. Sometimes they even count oil purchased to run government and military vehicles, because we totally have solar powered tanks and airplanes just sitting around.
Meanwhile renewables get real subsidies, big ones. It's great that solar is getting to the point where it can be competitive with coal even without subsidies. But then, ethanol is pretty much nothing but subsidies.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Monday June 01 2020, @12:44AM (13 children)
As reported by those notorious lefties Forbes. [forbes.com]
If you're happy with the fabulously profitable oil industry paying no taxes, you'll be happy to pay for the roads and rails they'll use, and also pay to clean up their pollution once they've taken all the oil.
I'm not sure your neighbours will agree with that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 01 2020, @01:57PM (12 children)
That's absolutely bogus, based on those fantasy numbers that AC was complaining about. Bad premise, bad conclusions.
And when is the IMF study in question going to do the same accounting for all the other energy sources out there? I assure you there are trillions of fantasy subsidies lurking in mining uranium and rare earths, damming rivers, displacing human activities, etc.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 02 2020, @12:19AM (11 children)
Oh, right.
Those notorious communists the International Monetary Fund, is what I should have put then.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 02 2020, @04:45AM (10 children)
I figure they're the IMF's token Green group. And needless to say, I read the study [imf.org] rather than just assume that these authors must know what they're talking about just because IMF shows up somewhere. For example (page 7):
In other words, they're equating "environmental costs", a proxy for the primary negative externality of fossil fuel use (and which in turn is some numbers that they pull out of their asses) with subsidies. We also need to consider that much of these "environmental costs" is because the developing world, most particularly China, can't be bothered to implement basic pollution controls. It's not a subsidy of fossil fuels, but a subsidy of bad industrial practices.
Anyway, this conflation of subsidy and externality is more explicit in their definition of subsidy (pages 7-8):
In other words, pre-tax subsidies are real world subsidies, more or less, and post-tax subsidies are with all the imaginary crap thrown in.
Once again, no similar treatment is taken with any other power generation. And in addition, we haven't included positive externalities of cheaper power either - they're only considering half the balance sheet. So there you have it, a one-sided, fossil fuel-only, make-up-shit study of the alleged subsidies of fossil fuel use. Truly a great thing to hang the IMF name on. Just keep in mind this caveat (page 2):
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 02 2020, @07:06AM (9 children)
I can't understand why the IMF don't ask you to do their studies for them, you're obviously way ahead of them.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 02 2020, @08:11AM (8 children)
No kidding. That study was pretty shitty. It doesn't take much drilling into the details before the wheels come off.
But much of that information just isn't there. I've only seen one study (of Europe) that even tried to compare real world subsidies of energy generation on an equal footing. (Needless to say, renewable energy didn't fare well on a per unit energy comparison.) The rest are just selling a talking point like this one. They just aren't interested.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 02 2020, @09:40PM (7 children)
Wow. Have you been diagnosed?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 02 2020, @10:57PM (6 children)
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 02 2020, @11:21PM (5 children)
I wasn't being sarcastic, and I'm not a psychologist, so I don't know what's wrong with you, but you have an incrediblly inflated sense of your own abilities, and I'm sure that affects your life adversely.
It does not however affect mine.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 02 2020, @11:53PM (4 children)
Not to denigrate my abilities, but what abilities do I really need to write opinion papers for the IMF?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 03 2020, @12:25AM (3 children)
Oh, and absolutely no self-awareness. It's weird and creepy.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 03 2020, @06:41AM (2 children)
Psychoanalyzing my level of alleged self-awareness isn't going to help.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 03 2020, @08:13AM (1 child)
No you haven't. That's hilarious.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 03 2020, @02:09PM
If you're just going to tell me what I have or haven't done without regard for reality, then at least make the story amusing.